Haptic perception of parallelity in the midsagittal plane.

Previous studies [Perception 28 (1999) 1001; Perception 28 (1999) 781] on the haptic perception of parallelity on a horizontal plane showed that what subjects haptically perceive as being parallel deviates considerably from what is physically parallel. The deviations could be described with a subject-dependent orientation gradient in the left-right direction. The gradients found in the bimanual conditions were significantly larger (about 70%) than those in the unimanual conditions. The questions to be answered in the present study are the following: (1) Does the haptic perception of parallelity in the midsagittal plane also show systematic deviations from veridicality? (2) Are the unimanual and bimanual performances again quantitatively but not qualitatively different? The set-up consisted of a plate positioned in the midsagittal plane of the subject. The subject touched the right side of the plate with his/her right hand and the left side with the left hand. The results show again large systematic deviations. The major part of the deviations can be described by means of a subject-dependent orientation gradient in the vertical direction. The quantitative (but not qualitative) difference between the unimanual and the bimanual conditions is much larger in the midsagittal plane than in the horizontal plane.

[1]  J. F. Soechting,et al.  Parallel, interdependent channels for location and orientation in sensorimotor transformations for reaching and grasping. , 1993, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  Edward A. Essock,et al.  An anisotropy of human tactile sensitivity and its relation to the visual oblique effect , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  D R Proffitt,et al.  The influence of spatial reference frames on imagined object- and viewer rotations. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[4]  E C Lechelt,et al.  Spatial Anisotropy in Intramodal and Cross-Modal Judgments of Stimulus Orientation: The Stability of the Oblique Effect , 1980, Perception.

[5]  S Appelle,et al.  Effect of Modality-Specific Experience on Visual and Haptic Judgment of Orientation , 1985, Perception.

[6]  J F Soechting,et al.  Moving in three-dimensional space: frames of reference, vectors, and coordinate systems. , 1992, Annual review of neuroscience.

[7]  J. Vauclair,et al.  Hand-movement profiles in a tactual—tactual matching task: Effects of spatial factors and laterality , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  Haptic Discrimination of Doubly Curved Surfaces , 1994, Perception.

[9]  Edouard Gentaz,et al.  Role of gravitational cues in the haptic perception of orientation , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  Haptic Unilateral and Bilateral Discrimination of Curved Surfaces , 1996, Perception.

[11]  J. Soechting,et al.  Frames of Reference for Hand Orientation , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  S Appelle,et al.  Eliminating the Haptic Oblique Effect: Influence of Scanning Incongruity and Prior Knowledge of the Standards , 1986, Perception.

[13]  J. Paillard.  Motor and representational framing of space , 1991 .

[14]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  Large Systematic Deviations in the Haptic Perception of Parallelity , 1999, Perception.

[15]  Edward A. Essock,et al.  Superior sensitivity for tactile stimuli oriented proximally-distally on the finger : Implications for mixed class 1 and class 2 anisotropies , 1997 .

[16]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  Haptic Perception of Spatial Relations , 1999, Perception.

[17]  E. Gentaz,et al.  The Haptic ‘Oblique Effect’ in Children's and Adults' Perception of Orientation , 1995, Perception.

[18]  E. Lechelt,et al.  Perceptual orientational asymmetries: A comparison of visual and haptic space , 1976 .